Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32269779›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on 'fact boxes'.

Cameron Brick, Michelle McDowell, Alexandra L J Freeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A Description-Experience Framework of the Psychology of Risk.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cameron BrickWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7174-8193
Michelle McDowellHarding Center for Risk Literacy, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1522-757X
Alexandra L J FreemanWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4115-161X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesidentifying effective summary formats is fundamental to multiple fields including science communication, systematic reviews, evidence-based policy and medical decision-making. This study tested whether table or text-only formats lead to better comprehension of the potential harms and benefits of different options, here in a medical context.

designpre-registered, longitudinal experiment: between-subjects factorial 2 (message format) × 2 topic (therapeutic or preventative intervention) on comprehension and later recall (CONSORT-SPI 2018).

settinglongitudinal online survey experiment.

participants2305 census-matched UK residents recruited through the survey panel firm YouGov. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: comprehension of harms and benefits and knowledge recall after six weeks.

resultsfact boxes-simple tabular messages-led to more comprehension (

conclusionsthe brief table format of the fact box improved the comprehension of harms and benefits relative to the text-only control. Effective communication supports informed consent and decision-making and brings ethical and practical advantages. Fact boxes and other summary formats may be effective in a wide range of communication contexts.

Indexed as

decision aiddecision-makingfact boxmedical decisionrisk communicationrisk literacy

Identifiers

PMID32269779
PMCPMC7137953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.